Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

FM Forum Rules
Wedding Resource List
  

FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       end
  

Archive 2015 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media

  
 
JakeB.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


Hey all, it seems a few friends of mine have run into a bit of an ethics dilemma and while I already know my position, I wanted to sample a larger group of pro wedding togs.

Here is some background and the facts as I know them:
- Photog A has a relatively new business that is plugging along nicely.
- Photog B has a long standing business that is steady.
- Photog C has been second shooting weddings locally for quite some time.

About a month ago, Photog A got to a point where he/she needed a good second shooter. Photog B suggested that Photog A get in touch with Photog C. Photogs A and C worked out a verbal agreement for wage and Photog A said that Photog C could still use the images he/she captured for his/her portfolio. Photog C would be using his/her own equipment and would specifically be bringing to the table his/her skillset in OCF.

This weekend Photogs A and C had their third wedding together. After the wedding Photog C hands over the memory cards (as usual) and the day after the wedding Photog A (the business owner and primary shooter) posts a single photo to social media. The photo posted is one that Photog C posed, set up and took with his/her camera, equipment and OCF skill set. Photog A did not credit Photog C with the capture and even insinuated that he/she personally took it by saying how proud he/she was of it. Photog A also posted the image to a private photography group insinuating that he/she took the image and mentioned how happy he/she was to no longer be a "natural light only" photographer.

Photog C is a little bit offended that he/she wasn't credited, possibly more than normal since Photog A insinuated that he/she personally took the image. After speaking briefly with Photog A about the situation, Photog C is told that he/she wouldn't be credited because Photogs A and B didn't want to lose him/her as their second shooter... They were afraid if people knew who Photog C was, he/she would get other business and not be available to them.

I know this was a long and difficult read, but please let me know what your thoughts are.
I apologize for any grammar mistakes, I typed this out on my phone.

Thanks!

Edited on Mar 23, 2015 at 10:07 PM · View previous versions



Mar 23, 2015 at 07:30 PM
Nikon_14
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


While wondering if there is more to this situation (always 1 of my thoughts whenever something is "clear"), my humble opinion is that:

-It's perfectly "legal" for Photog A to not give credit, since there wasn't anything written saying so.

-It's ridiculous for Photog A to give themselves credit for the image. Sooner or later, it'll come out that they don't have these skills, and they'll regret their claiming ability they don't have.

-It's also ridiculous for Photog A to not give Photog C credit where credit is due. I can't imagine how they expect to preserve a good working relationship by doing things like this.



Mar 23, 2015 at 07:38 PM
JakeB.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


There's probably more that could have been said, but I don't think it's all that important of information... I didn't want to wear out people's eyeballs and end of the day brain cells. :P


Mar 23, 2015 at 07:55 PM
myam203
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


I totally agree with Nikon_14. If I were Photog C, I'd be pissed and wouldn't likely work with Photog A again.

I shot with a Photog A type before and the relationship went bad quickly because of this sort of thing. As someone who loves and respects the craft of photography, I can't imagine taking credit for someone else's work, even if it were good for my business. It just seems really... dirty.



Mar 23, 2015 at 08:01 PM
fstopperdown
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


Such is the life of a second shooter.

Yes it is unfair and underhanded.

FWIW... Working for A+B types was for always for the experience. Move on and move up...



Mar 23, 2015 at 09:30 PM
TTLKurtis
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


Exactly what fstopperdown said...

You want to play with the big boys, then play with them. Otherwise as a second you give up (or at least share) copyright, so it goes with the territory. Is it cool? No. Does it happen? Sure.

I use 'you' in the sense of second photographers, not you personally. Whoever this is about, Photog C.



Mar 23, 2015 at 09:45 PM
JakeB.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


I'm right there with all you guys. My opinion is that it really comes down what Mike mentioned; respect.

Photog C has also worked with me quite a bit as a second, and I've used a few of his/her images on social sites. I've always credited other photographers when I post work they did as part of my business... I know how much time has gone into learning these skills and how much money is invested.

Each person has to decide on their own what working like this is worth and if they're willing to do it.

Would I do at the current point in my career? Nope.
Would I have done it two years ago when I was starving? Pretty sure I did.



Mar 23, 2015 at 10:16 PM
joshua grasso
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


I agree that technically Photog a has every right to post it. But the way the story was told also makes them sound douchey. So I wouldn't work with them any longer. I credit my seconds when I post their stuff even if I suppose you don't have to


Mar 23, 2015 at 10:25 PM
nolaguy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


Integrity is the best gift a person can give themselves, and the most powerful example they can set for their children.

Largely to our astonishment, some choose instead to roll in dung. I suppose their parents didn't teach them to avoid the stench.




Mar 23, 2015 at 10:59 PM
Littleguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


Not sure what you are asking here? But it sounds like the same old question we had for ages:

Should a second shooter be credited by the primary?

Would be nice but not required, especially if they are running as a studio format that has multiple photographers on roster.

Do people credit their retouchers if they outsource post processing? Do people credit their album providers if they outsource printing?

But I guess what's important is what's your business goal? Do you want more second shooter gigs or do you want to move to the primary role and book your own weddings? The primary has given you rights to use the photos - so what's stopping you from crediting yourself? The primary is not the only one who can give credit.

Use their brand to boost your own brand - hey look at this amazing photo I took for these big brand name photographers - I added the OCF look for these big brand name natural light photographers - I can do for the same for you as your second shooter.

If you want to move to a primary role - the pitch will be different but again position their brand to boost your own brand.



Mar 24, 2015 at 02:00 AM
amonline
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


Work for hire. Totally acceptable.

I only allow my seconds to show (online) images that I deliver; and no sooner than my delivery date. (typically 4-6 weeks) They can show anything they like in print privately to potentials, but cannot display something (online or off) I have not delivered. Once you get asked for such a missing image because a second showed something you did not deliver, you'll quickly put a stop to it.



Mar 24, 2015 at 03:04 AM
Mark_L
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


Technically? A is totally OK to post it - work for hire. Doesn't stop it being a dick move though.

Sounds like it is time for C to move on.



Mar 24, 2015 at 03:20 AM
JimboCin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


As the information is presented, this is not work made for hire. Photographer C owns the copyrights to the photos. Photographer A has no rights to post Photographer C's images without Photographer C's permission to do so.

Work made for hire has two provisions, neither of which were met:

- Work prepared by an employee within his or her scope of work.
Photographer C is not an employee of Photographer A. Photographer C is an independent contractor.
(See Compendium, Section 506.2 “Works Created by an Employee Within the Scope of His or Her Employment” for an excellent discussion of this topic.)


- Work that is specially ordered or commissioned where the parties expressly agree in writing, signed by them, that the work shall be considered “work made for hire” - and then only if the work falls under one of nine categories.
Reportedly there was no such written and signed contact.

---

Additional information on works made for hire can be found:

- Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act

- Compendium, Section 506 “Works Made for Hire”

“Works Made for Hire” – Available as a free download from the United States Copyright Office, US Copyright Office Circular 9, http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf


Edited on Mar 24, 2015 at 07:16 AM · View previous versions



Mar 24, 2015 at 07:06 AM
Tony Hoffer
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


I think it's wrong... Not legally but ethically.

Amy and I don't use other shooters, but when we post associate images we always try to link the 2nd shooter and we never post their images as our own on social media. If they have the best images, then we just need to get better.

I have posted some 2nd shooter images by mistake (since they were associate weddings I didn't know) but was always quickly corrected by Farid or Jim. Last week we were approached to have an image featured by a media outlet that a second shooter took for an associate of ours. We declined. It just didn't feel right to any of us. Ethics are more important than laws. I'd rather have good relationships with second shooters for 10 years than a one time feature on a blog.

Edited on Mar 24, 2015 at 07:25 AM · View previous versions



Mar 24, 2015 at 07:16 AM
JimboCin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


Why do people think it is not wrong legally?


Mar 24, 2015 at 07:17 AM
glort
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


Sounds to me frankly like shooter C needs to take a tablespoon of concrete and harden the hell up. Shooters are way too precious about what they do.

If shooter C got asked for a business card by a guest at the wedding, would they hand out theirs or the one for the studio they were there shooting for?
If you did the formar for any studio I have ever shot for, it would be the last shoot you ever did in the greater are and you be lucky if you didn't cop a smack in the teeth for it.

I don't see the " credit" thing as any different.
So what, you took the pic and the guy that hired you, in YOUR opinion " Insinuated" they took it. Build a bridge.
It's one or 10 or whatever pics. So what? Is your whole career or future built on those few pics and if your name isn't attached to them it's some mortal offense.

I have shot catalouges and annual reports and for wedding studios that took my images and did advertisements in nation magazines with them and I wasn't credited and never thought twice about it. I kept copies for my own ego massage as I knew I took the shots but I never felt it was that essentially important that other people who wouldn't know me from a bar of soap or where the hell to find me had to see my name on those pics.

I can see I'm going to get both barrels again from some people on this non socially approved convention way of thinking but anyway.

Really, if you are that worried about not getting " credit", don't shoot for anyone else ever again.

It's that simple



Mar 24, 2015 at 07:20 AM
myam203
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


1. This was not work for hire.

2. glort - Like anything else, it's all about the way you handle it. This was one photographer shooting for another, and Photog A went and posted a single image and claimed it as theirs. That's pretty crummy if you ask me. It's not like it was just among a bunch of others in a blog post, this guy actually went and said "look at this great shot I took."

I shot for a portrait studio and we all knew that our photos might be used in marketing, because we worked for the brand and accepted it going in, but this is one guy hiring another only for the third time and then slapping his name on their work. Yes, I understand that it's all fair game in the name of business, and yes, many photographers are precious about their work, because they put their time and talent into it.

It isn't good to be all about business or all about art, there needs to be a balance, but it shouldn't be surprising that some photographers are somewhat protective and have pride in their creations. If they're being "precious," it's only because they're human. Not everyone can detach from it like you are saying.



Mar 24, 2015 at 07:42 AM
MattGruber
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


This particular situation sounds kind of shitty. It would be different if it was an entire blog post full of images, and some of the second's were in there, but to blatantly say "look at this great shot I took" is lame. I have a main second who has been with me for years. Many of her shots go into my blog posts. BUT when she takes something that I think has to be shared on it's own, I credit her. I will say "I love this shot Collette captured yesterday", or something along those lines.


Mar 24, 2015 at 08:21 AM
glort
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


myam203 wrote:
this guy actually went and said "look at this great shot I took."


Is that definitely what happened and you have seen this yourself or just going on what was said here?

If you have seen it that is a bit different but if not, you know the old thing about there always being 3 sides.... :0)

And I think that's the real trouble with these things, the actual and the perceived.
There are always so many details that can't be known by 3rd parties in these situations.

Even if the guy did claim the shot as his own, so what? It's not that much different to them running an ad to promote the studio using one of his images because it would be assumed that the studio owner took them. And it's the same with the shots in the couples album. I'm pretty sure that studios don't put a credit for every shot to the respective shooter. When someone sees that album and sees the branding in the cover Sams snaps studio, they are going to assume Sam took them.

The other thing is, as upsetting as it may be to some, the studio has a lot invested in it's branding and there are pitfalls in crediting the 2nd shooters.

I found this myself in a studio I worked for. The prescribed style was very bread and butter. Me being young and even dumber than I am now thought I knew better and went out and shot this off the wall style wedding.
The problem was, the clients absoloutley loved it. So did the relatives who saw it and had only been married months before and wanted to know why they didn't get that style and suddenly weren't so happy. Then the friends who were getting married ( got to love close knit ethnic communities) rang the studio owner and wanted the same guy to shoot their wedding in a few weeks. Problem was, I would be away at a family wedding and sure as hell none of the other old timers that worked there could do what I did, they hated it. When we all did the same thing it was never a problem. when one smart arse wanted to show off, then the excrement impacted the rotating air relocating apparatus.

The upshot was the guy I worked for and liked a lot had to take a dive on keeping the past clients happy with thrown in goodies that cost him materials and revenue and ended up losing the future clients who went off looking for someone to shoot this other style they now wanted.
That guy did a lot for me and I felt like dirt over this. I never tried to be a hero there again. There were very valid business reasons that we should all stick to the level the studio was known for and prospered from it happy client's.

I can see where the studio owner in this case could be making a rod for his own back by attributing work to anyone but himself. He says Fred took this shot and the next client wants Fred to shoot their wedding and Fred isn't available and then there is a problem. Or, as eluded to, now those clients go off trying to find fred and and hes got the job that the other guys promotional efforts have paid for.

Now Fred may not like missing out on his credit and by the moral book it may not be the fairest thing in the world BUT, it's not Fred who is investing the money in advertising and promotions and taking the financial risks either. He turns up, does his thing, gets his money and is happy as .

Why is fred shooting for other people? Perhaps he doesn't want to take the risk, put in the time, have the interest or dedication that the people he's working for do? Maybe there are other reasons he's working for other studios and not doing all his own jobs?

In any case, the aggrieved shooter should simply move on and not shoot for that person again if he is so unhappy with the situation. In this case he may also lose the work with the other studio but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Life is unfair sometimes and you have to learn to deal with it.

At least by only working for himself he can make sure he gets the " credit" for every single shot posted on the net.
Question is, what's more important, The recognition or the cash from the other jobs?


Edited on Mar 24, 2015 at 09:23 AM · View previous versions



Mar 24, 2015 at 08:39 AM
myam203
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Ethics question: biz owners, second shooters and social media


Just going by what was said here, but I've been Photog C before and it was pretty obnoxious when it happened. Even worse in my case, because Photog A actually denied saying I could use any of my images from their weddings a made a big stink about it, so that was the end of our relationship.


Mar 24, 2015 at 08:43 AM
1
       2       3       4       end




FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.